Trump 47

Q: The conventional wisdom is that the only place to look for cuts is entitlements. Do you think that's true?

Trump Treasury Secretary: “The cat’s out of the bag… This administration is not going to stop.”



 
Because they have already admitted in court they didn't verify the identity bof any of them ..so they aren't sure they deported the people they claim they did

Rachel Scott on those who were deported to El Salvador: "If the White House can publish images, photos, videos of those men, why can't the administration just release basic information like their identities and names?"

 
Bush appointed judge...broke no laws ....GOP rep who filed articles of impeachment can't think of any legal reason why the judge should be impeached when confronted on live TV



GOP Rep. Brandon Gill Can’t Name Crime of Judge He Wants Impeached

The congressman who filed for the impeachment of the judge blocking Donald Trump’s deportations couldn't specify what illegal action or what the judge's alleged crime was

 
More than 600 NOAA workers were laid off.

This week, the federal government reinstated some of them, but they were placed on administrative leave.

Dennis Jaszka received an email saying he was reinstated at NOAA, but "placed in a paid, non-duty status.”

Jaszka said he resents the implication that government workers are a drain on taxpayer resources, and said it's "ridiculous" the government is now willing to pay him to not work at all. https://nbcnews.to/4iE0WGj
 
Ultra conservative National Review weighs in on "Trumplaw"

National Review Denounces ‘Trumplaw’ Amid Legal Controversy — Scolds the President, His Enemies, and Chief Justice Roberts​

National Review denounced what it deemed “Trumplaw” in a Wednesday editorial addressing the controversy over the president’s objection to District Court Judge James Boasberg’s decision putting deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to a halt over the weekend.


Boasberg called for a halt to the deportations as he considers the case on Saturday, but planes with deportees on board nevertheless landed in El Salvador and Honduras, raising questions over whether the Trump administration had deliberately defied a court order. While President Donald Trump himself has denied that, both he and Elon Musk have called for Boasberg’s impeachment.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts rejected that call, writing in a statement that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

On Wednesday, the conservative magazine weighed in on it all.

“It sometimes seems that Donald Trump and his most bitter antagonists live in a parallel universe of Trumplaw. In that mode, judges and lawyers abandon legal sobriety and bend the law beyond its recognizable contours in order to thwart Trump. In response, the president and his circle act intemperately by lobbing personal attacks at judges and lawyers, playing fast and loose with facts and the law, and at least flirting with outright defying the rulings of courts,” began the editorial. “Whenever this happens, we find ourselves returning to first principles — including the importance of getting the details right. Neither bad faith nor bad habits on the part of either side relieves us of the duty to stand for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the proper separation of powers. We shall need all of these long after Trump is gone.”

It continued:

America is ruled by laws that are written down. That is how the people make the rules. In order for rules to be binding, someone must decide what they mean. That is what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “the judicial power,” which they vested in the courts. Voters hire the executive to carry out the rules, in the course of which the president must form views of what the laws mean, but longstanding American constitutional tradition has treated the word of the courts on the meaning of laws as final.

Written rules are no less binding on judges; indeed, courts lack legitimate powers outside of them. Where the mandates of law leave room for judgment and discretion, that is typically a job for executive rather than judicial power, and for democratic accountability rather than cloistered and insulated life tenure.

For more than two centuries, presidents have chafed at the assertions of the supremacy of the judicial branch, and constitutionalists have raised alarms when the imperial judiciary at times has usurped authorities it was not granted by written law. Yet we have never had a full, open rupture between a president and the courts. We should avoid one so long as possible. Progressive Democrats threatened to defy court orders after Roe v. Wade was struck down; once the principle is established in the public mind that such things can be done, it will be a hard principle to limit.
“The White House should make clear that it will abide by the decisions of the appeals courts, and leave it at that. This is the wrong case to pick a wider fight with the legal system, no matter how well it polls. Given that Judge Boasberg has only delayed Trump’s actions, and that an appeal has already been filed, further escalations by either side are unnecessary and damaging to the American constitutional settlement,” concluded the publication’s editorial board. “As for Chief Justice Roberts, he did not help matters by lacking the courage to nip judicial adventurism in the bud in the USAID case. While he is right to be concerned at executive blowhardism, in this instance, he can best defend his branch’s legitimate powers by tending to his own house.”

The post
 
More than 600 NOAA workers were laid off.

This week, the federal government reinstated some of them, but they were placed on administrative leave.

Dennis Jaszka received an email saying he was reinstated at NOAA, but "placed in a paid, non-duty status.”

Jaszka said he resents the implication that government workers are a drain on taxpayer resources, and said it's "ridiculous" the government is now willing to pay him to not work at all. https://nbcnews.to/4iE0WGj
Thats not wasteful at all.
 
“We’re working on it.” Steve Bannon says Trump will run for, and win, a third term in 2028. (Video: NewsNation)

Like hell he will. That is the constitutional amendment and there is no way they are getting that changed. And if they try to do it without the constitution, well, that is civil war level crap.
 
The US military just purged their website of mentions of the Holocaust, 9/11 remembrance, cancer awareness, sexual assault, and suicide prevention to align with their new “anti-DEI” policies.

 
I guess when it’s your loyal, non-independent AUSAs (Assistant US Attorneys) and DOJ deciding whether perjury charges would be filed in federal court, you can lie with impunity.

Just one of the reasons the US Attorney’s Office and the DOJ should pledge and remain loyal to the law and Constitution rather than the Executive Appointing Authority/President.

And we don’t have that anymore.
 
I guess when it’s your loyal, non-independent AUSAs (Assistant US Attorneys) and DOJ deciding whether perjury charges would be filed in federal court, you can lie with impunity.

Just one of the reasons the US Attorney’s Office and the DOJ should pledge and remain loyal to the law and Constitution rather than the Executive Appointing Authority/President.

And we don’t have that anymore.
So do we have anyone to actually provide any sort of punishment to anyone in his circle or legit check on this crap?

Can the judge do anything without the DOJ/AUSAs filing charges?
 
So do we have anyone to actually provide any sort of punishment to anyone in his circle or legit check on this crap?

Can the judge do anything without the DOJ/AUSAs filing charges?
Potentially contempt citation, but that’s usually financial sanctions or a short stint in jail.

It’d take a very strong judge to deal with that blowback and controversy though. It’s not something judges do very often and it’s would be levied against the attorney and/or whoever signed the declaration.
 
Q: The conventional wisdom is that the only place to look for cuts is entitlements. Do you think that's true?

Trump Treasury Secretary: “The cat’s out of the bag… This administration is not going to stop.”



What about the Defense Dept.? Did this costly nonsense ever stop?

 
And if they say nah I'm not doing that and no one enforces it?
For instance, if the judge levied a financial sanction for contempt that they refused to pay….that’d be another contempt where he could add further sanctions….increasing fines or jail time until the contempt is purge.

Theoretically, if the judged levied a financial sanction and the person sanctioned just said, “nah dawg, I ain’t paying that” (rather than appealing and asking for a stay during the appeal) the Judge could jail him until it was paid.

I say theoretically because I seriously doubt the Judge would do this for a lot of reasons.
 
Back
Top